June 1, 2012

With the definition of self-esteem being an overall feeling of self-worth, Harrison told CNN, kids were asked reverse-coded questions such as, "Are there a lot of things about yourself you would like to change?"

Are you sure you didn't reverse-code some other character quality?

For white boys, "regardless of what show you're watching ... things in life are pretty good for you," [Nicole] Martins, an assistant professor of telecommunications at Indiana University Bloomington, said in a statement. "(White males) tend to be in positions of power; you have prestigious occupations, high education, glamorous houses, a beautiful wife, with very little portrayals of how hard you worked to get there."

The persistence of this idiocy can only be described as conspiratorial. If 99% of white males have a superior material and political position, then the remaining 1% have received no benefit from sharing incidental features with this successful class of people. The reality -- under ideal circumstances -- exhibits a normal distribution and cannot be demonstrated to be dependent on sharing incidental features. This study, as so many others, confuses cause and effect, and conflates correlation with dependence.

I can only assume that the authors have an undisclosed ulterior motive or, perhaps, they are ignorant or prejudiced, and cannot see the individuals for their skin color. Either way, they denigrate individual dignity, and diminish the value of individual effort as they reject it in favor of an unrealistic surrogate.

This study must have been conducted in order to rationalize the persistent of affirmative action and other forms of institutional discrimination of individuals based on their skin color, gender, etc. It has indeed been a profitable scheme and both beneficiaries and providers are unlikely to relinquish their advantage any time soon.

Doesn't anyone ever notice exactly what percentage of white males don't end up as CEOs?

Yes . . . and there's a certain amount of forced categorisation going on there. It's not quite as extreme as, say, positing that there's two meaningful groups --"Whites" and "Non-Whites" -- and inferring that life in Japan must be great for Blacks because everything is run by "Non-Whites," but it's the same kind of thing.

"Much has been written about the sociocultural pressures putonwomen to attain unrealistic ideals of physical perfection. Research devotedto this issue has found that as many as half of normal-weightteenage girls consider themselves overweight, and that body imagedissatisfaction among girls and women is a normative componentof life in Western society" say authors Nicole Martins, Dmitri C. Williamsb, Rabindra A. Ratanb, and Kristen Harrison in a 2010 paper, "Virtual muscularity: A content analysis of male video game characters."

Now, might a reasonable reader even consider that these authors perhaps started with the conclusions and then worked their way back to find some evidence to support them?

The evil of identity politics, imagining that individuals can be defined by group. Individual achievement and individual failing do not count, only group identity. If some members of the group are doing well, or not, then that is indicative of all members of the group. Then the "Fail" group is assumed to be (1) oppressed and (2) entitled to extra help and the "Achiever" group is assumed to be (1) cheating somehow and (2) obligated to provide the extra help.

Looking around the culture, self-esteem does not seem to be in short supply anywhere.

"Self-esteem" is one of the most pernicious memes to crop up in the fields of developmental psychology and education (education a field unto itself? jeez the mind-fuck has me doing it too)

Historically the self-esteem of children correlates to failure in adult life as often as success. American children from an Asian ethnic background typically score at the low end of the self-esteem curve, yet they're in the top percentile of academic achievers and the top percentile of achievers in adulthood as well. Why? It's not because being Asian means you're smarter, it's because being Asian means you're more likely to live in a home where parents have high expectations, and it means you're more likely to know that self-satisfaction and ignorance go hand in hand.

On another topic, the Weeks Hall redtails are now in what falconers call the brancher stage of nestling development, formerly they were eyasses. On Wednesday one of them was blown off the nest by a strong breeze, but today all three are back on their ledge.

What do they THINK is going to happen when the proper attitudes about race involve making darn sure that every black boy and girl knows, more than anything else, that they are pitiful, oppressed creatures that everyone is out to get?

If some poor black kid (of any economic background) were to (gasp!) have the attitude that Cain had, or hear the message that they can get ahead by hard work and be respected for it, the world would end in a huge anti-matter explosion.

I don't buy it at all. Mostly white males are derided in contemporary advertising, which of course the consumption of which increases with more TV watching. Not to mention the fact that there is a surfeit of non-white, non-male protagonists on young viewer fare. I have sat with my daughters (8 and 4) and watched some of the kid's programming and was slightly dismayed, on my 2-year-old boy's behalf, that there simply aren't very many normal, masculine, smart, capable characters. Victorious - the only two white males are 1) a hen-picked boyfriend and 2) a "Soap"-style ventriloquist nutjob. iCarley - 1) eccentric, oafish, older brother secondary character 2) fat, oafish brute secondary character 3) IT geek, subserviant character.

The paper is here, though you probably need an academic affiliation to see it. The main table is on page 350, but it isn't labeled very well.

The kids were chosen from racially diverse elementary schools in the Midwest. They dropped kids who didn't self-identify as black or white because there were too few of them; kids who said they were both were counted as black. They ended up with just over 200 black kids and just under 200 white kids. TV usage was also self-reported, with kids reporting more than 85 hours a week dropped as unreliable.

The results are there -- there seems to be a connection between self-esteem and TV watching that differs by sex and race -- but they aren't terribly strong. I'm inclined to wait for replication before spending much time speculating on why the effect of self-esteem on self-reported TV habits should depend on sex and race, but I'm more inclined to believe some cultural explanation for that direction of causality than I am to buy the authors' explanation.

Anyone who's seen series TV or commercials is going to be confused by this because shows are just packed with savvy white women and hip black males forever tossing white males in the slammer or showing how goofy they are.

I guess being the people who go out and solve the crime ain't what it used to be.

What do they THINK is going to happen when the proper attitudes about race involve making darn sure that every black boy and girl knows, more than anything else, that they are pitiful, oppressed creatures that everyone is out to get?

Yep. I've always wondered if this is the same dynamic at work in the disparity between American-born blacks and higher achieving blacks from other countries.

Our society is racist and sexist and this benefits white males more than anyone else. They see this reflected on tv, as does everyone else.

Is this surprising?

Hatman obviously hasn't taken a look at the POTUS, Secretaries of HHS, HS, Labor, State, Attorney General, former Speaker of the House, 4 SCOTUS Justices, the black man and white woman who ran for the Republican nomination.

Yeah, white males - white straight males (that's what Hatman really can't stand) - really run this country as they see fit.

Except if you look at Nickelodeon or the Disney Channel, almost all of their content is squarely aimed at teen and pre-teen girls.

* * *

As I posted this, I realized that I came close to explaining the problem. Commercials and content are male neutral at best, but often quite anti-male. Were you an alien you'd conclude that white straight males are useless, gays make up 20% of the population and women are SUPER.

Men have grown relatively thick skins about this. Women and gays not so much. In the end, pandering doesn't help anyone and this "study" may have just proven that.

Andy R wrote: Our society is racist and sexist and this benefits white males more than anyone else. They see this reflected on tv, as does everyone else.

I think it also depends on the type of programming. For example, blacks are over represented in televised contact sports and gay white males are over represented in women's fashion programming. Segregation and stereotyping is not just a straight white male thing like Andy and others would like you to believe.

About the only fashion show I've seen recently not dominated by gay males is that new one called "Big Brooklyn Style."

Hatman obviously hasn't taken a look at the POTUS, Secretaries of HHS, HS, Labor, State, Attorney General, former Speaker of the House, 4 SCOTUS Justices, the black man and white woman who ran for the Republican nomination.

Straight white males get so much abuse on television these days that:1) straight white male viewers feel good about themselves in comparison, and, 2) Any sensitivity to insult is wiped out by overuse of insults.

These two things help straight white males persevere in the face of hostility from women, minorities and gays, and (even more importantly) to recognize that hard work and determination are more effective ways of achieving success in your goals than just calling everyone you disagree with a sexist/racist/homophobic bigot.

I don't disagree with the statement that racism exists, Andy, I just think that what you espouse, HURTS people.

If someone were to design, on purpose, a program that would keep minorities in their place, keep them down, and make advancement as hard for them as it could possibly be, they would design and encourage everyone to do just exactly what you do.

But it's a choice, I suppose. You can make sure you have the right attitudes and get all lofty toward everyone else about that... or you could care about end results.

If you happen to meet a black youth who has a positive outlook and optimistic attitude.

SQUASH IT.

That's exactly what all the "privilege" bullshit does. It's Underpants Gnome sociology, played with real people's lives. There is no way to get from point 1. to point 3. Not even an attempt is made to describe what point 2. ought to be.

And yet, the whole "white privilege" racism "movement" thinks that THEY are the good guys.

Hatman obviously hasn't taken a look at the POTUS, Secretaries of HHS, HS, Labor, State, Attorney General, former Speaker of the House, 4 SCOTUS Justices, the black man and white woman who ran for the Republican nomination.

You might want to read this article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is. There is always something sad about seeing white men who not only do not see their privilege, but also think it's everyone else that has it easy. It looks like we have some of that in this thread.

Yes, dear, you're right; that's why all those straight white males are out of work out there while the system insists all its Affirmative action quotas be filled.

Oh, Christ, a snide little piece of snark written by some doctrinaire Lefty mad at the world because people don't think he's "fabulous" because he's "gay" is all you've got?

Hatman has to be the whiniest, most miserable excuse for a Lefty there is. No doubt he really is an Occupier.

I can't even rap my mind around the perspective of a white male who thinks he is the one that life is stacked against.

He can't even spell, either.

Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback.

I can't even wrap my mind around the perspective of a white male who thinks he is the one that life is stacked against.

Is it really so difficult? I'm half-Korean and half-White, and honestly, if I had to choose between being full-White and full-Korean, there is no way I would choose to be full-White unless you also let me choose to be rich. Yes, as a Korean-American you face some extra barriers due to affirmative action, people crack occasional dog-eating jokes, native losers in California resent you, and there's a subset of Black people who hate your guts, but the sense of opportunity and possibility open to you in life seems to be so much broader as a Korean. Whites, outside of the wealthiest classes, seem to live in a world of narrower horizons and opportunities. I mean, sure it's probably easier to find work as an agricultural labourer or a plumber if you're White, but these are totally not things I would have any interest in doing.

On the other hand, if all you care about is Whites vs. Blacks, then sure, I'd choose to be White over Black. At least as a White, people don't prefer hiring illiterate Mexican peasants over you. But the simplistic assumption that it's easier to be a White Male than anything else is not borne out by my experience at all. There are things that are easier, and maybe you weight those things more heavily. But I don't.

When you look at Scalzi's essay, one thing you have to remember is that Scalzi was a privileged little rich kid, or at least that was his milieu. I come from the same part of California as he does, and I know the private school (Webb) that he went to (I was a public school boy myself). In some ways, I think his perspective reflects that background.

Yes, I see your point. But the test is usually run on names that are "marked" for Black ethnicity vs. names that are not. E.g. "LaShawn" or "DeAndre" are marked as Black-ethnic. They're actually class markers too, though -- if a white man had a name like "Cletus" or "Horace," I'd guess he'd get dinged too for having a redneck name.

And that's the problem. Do I think we ought to ignore racism? No. I think we should actually *combat* racism, and "white privilege" doesn't do that, because no one wallowing in it can see the alternatives. It offers no way *out*. No solutions. No progress. No future.

The first thing to understand, Andy, is that people face life alone. They face their challenges alone. They fail alone.

To treat the *problem* you have to look at the individual.

Anything social, finding jobs or interacting with people, is primarily about attitude. The individual with a positive attitude who is confident will succeed more often and sooner. This is where "white privilege" hurts the worst. The white guy named Andy who wallows in it and feels like he's done his part, is only the other side of the coin of the black guy who has to somehow stand up and continue against a constant message that he's simply *screwed* no matter what he does.

And then he's got to go out and get a job, deal with people, have an optimistic attitude.

But the TRUTH is that almost everyone he meets will want to help him if they can. People like to help. They'll help you network, help you get a job, help you know how to go on. Almost everyone a white person meets will do that, and almost everyone a black person meets will do that. We LIKE helping. It makes us feel good about ourselves.

What else is TRUE is that even people who are racist, or uncomfortable around minorities, are trying hard NOT to be. Trying not to be, and worry about giving offense is the most likely reason that a person would be uncomfortable.

Instead of telling people how terrible they are, with no way out, not even if they haven't a single racist thought in their darkest heart, that they are terrible because they are white... doesn't help because you can't stop being white.

Telling people that the world is stacked against them and nothing they can do about, doesn't help anyone be open to opportunity or to the help that people like to give OR to moving past a point where anyone cares.

Tell the truth. No matter what the color of your skin, the majority of people you meet will want to help you succeed.

Instead of enforcing and re-enforcing a continuance of racial division, start dealing with people as individuals, with individual skills and character.

It's one thing to say to an individual "stop being racist", and quite another to demand that people are racist due to something they've no control over, and never will have control over.

That's why you "can't get there from here". "White privilege" is all based on something that people CAN'T change.

You DO realize that Scalzi started the whole thing by saying something contrary to the notion, and was spanked and ostracized, shamed, and relentlessly abused until he adequately grovelled and whimpered and begged to be accepted back into polite company?

His choice, I suppose. I thought the whole spectacle was obscene.

I also have science-fiction writer friends that I haven't "spoken" to since then, since they came down on the other side of it. Not that I won't speak to them, but they don't want to hear about "White Privilege Gnome, step #2."

The authors mentioned that they also tried to use stereotypical white and black names as well. The first names are listed in the table as well.

The details of this particular study aren't terribly important, since I can't imagine anyone disputes that, in aggregate, a business would be more interested in hiring a white person than a black person. Or are we pretending that racism doesn't exist?

To study contemporary discrimination, we conducted a field experiment in the low-wage labor market of New York City, recruiting white, black, and Latino job applicants who were matched on demographic characteristics and interpersonal skills. These applicants were given equivalent résumés and sent to apply in tandem for hundreds of entry-level jobs. Our results show that black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

Can you elaborate in what you think the difference is between white and Korean people?

I worked for a guy who's lawyer wife went through the job applications at his store and threw all the male names in the trash.

I watched her do it.

At my last job it helped a whole lot if you were Hispanic. The non-Hispanic guy I worked with had to push the issue with the boss before he got to, after two years, get on track for assistant manager, despite having all but a few credits of a business degree. The Hispanic fellow who knew the boss and just graduated high school started there.

HatBoy, Racism, classism, ageism, sexism, etc. will ALWAYS exist. It's incumbent upon individuals to overccome them. It's done by many on a daily basis. Sometimes you have to work harder. And, any intellectually honest person would agree that it's been a steady improvement during the last 50 years. Do you agree?

The authors mentioned that they also tried to use stereotypical white and black names as well. The first names are listed in the table as well.

Table 11 (page 39) is interesting in that it suggests (or really, confirms) that the names are also class marked. An interesting test would be running the same experiment with class-marked White names like Ruby Jane or Bobbi Jo.

The broad contours of racism in America are obvious and unmistakable. We can set up a little academic reading group if you would like and work through a couple of these studies together, but the forest is so obvious we probably don't need to waste our time on the details of the individual trees.

Can you elaborate in what you think the difference is between white and Korean people?

That the middle-class Whites I know never even thought of applying to anything but local state schools, local jobs, and so on. But I know Koreans with similarly decent but not spectacular academics who kind of offhandedly assumed that of course they could get into Harvard or any other school they wanted to, and of course if they wanted to get a job working in finance such a job would be available to them, or of course if they wanted to work in the entertainment business, they could find a position. The average level of self-confidence borders on the delusional, but at the same time, you'll never grasp anything if you don't reach for it. I mean, you see this in the stereotypical progression -- the first generation immigrants come over and run laundries or grocery stores. And then their children become doctors, lawyers, financiers. Or take over the family business, or whatever. They start at the bottom rung, but everything is within reach to them.

I don't know any Whites whose parents worked at laundries or grocery stores, but the more middle-class Whites of my limited acquaintance just don't seem to have considered that kind of reach at all. Oh, I'm sure they have ambitions and dreams and so on. It's just the scale of them seems consistently so much smaller. And dropping class across generations, whether due to the laziness of the children, drug addiction, teenage pregnancy . . . that just seems like so much more real and immediate a risk for White families -- one I've seen realised, in fact -- than for Korean families. Yes, it's snobbish and I'm sure people who drop class can be perfectly happy too . . . but being unable to convey to one's own children the material comforts and freedoms one enjoyed as a child seems really horrible in its own way.

I should have specified there Korean-Americans, or Koreans in America. Life for Koreans in Korea seems awfully hard, full of intense social pressure to keep up appearances and always do the done thing.

Yes, dear, you're right; that's why all those straight white males are out of work out there while the system insists all its Affirmative action quotas be filled.

Is this sarcasm? You realize that white people have dramatically lower unemployment rates than black people?

No, black people have higher rates of unemployment because they have listened to Lefties such as Hatman who have indoctrinated them with the idea that the worst they can do is "act White" and stay out of trouble, get educated, and wait until they're secure in life before starting a family; people like Hatman tell them they're victims of racism and can't do anything without government's help.

The details of this particular study aren't terribly important, since I can't imagine anyone disputes that, in aggregate, a business would be more interested in hiring a white person than a black person.

Since the Feds are looking over their shoulder in many cases to make sure all the quotas are filled?

How many of these people with "black" names may have had other problems, like no education, criminal record, etc.? That might not be a factor?

Since Hatman has probably never held a job, it's easy for him to be sure of this.

My position is that America is fundamentally racist and sexist and this is reflected on tv and therefore white boys feel good when they see their status and privilege reflected on tv.

He forgot homophobic. That's his little crutch.

If he really thinks that way, why does he stay here? If he can find a place where people are less racist and sexist - Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Pakistan - he can go there.

My opinion, and the reason that I think that the "privilege" stuff is so outright and explicitly damaging to society and particularly and specifically black youth, as bad as if someone set out on purpose to destroy the future of black people, is... you have to think you *can* before you'll ever *try*.

And "privilege" tells minority youth that the world is stacked against them.

And then insists that anyone who doesn't agree with this is a racist, evil person.

How many of these people with "black" names may have had other problems, like no education, criminal record, etc.? That might not be a factor?

It would be hard for it to be a factor because they were fake resumes with fake names. The only way it could come in is through an implicit assumption that someone with a Black name is more likely to have a poor education (e.g. "soft bigotry of low expectations"), criminal record, etc. And that's kind of the point of the study -- that people respond differently to Black names than to White or neutral names, even when everything else that's known is the same.

What does this MEAN? A country is racist or sexist by having racist and sexist laws. (See, e.g., Saudi Arabia, etc.) How, then, is America either racist or sexist? (I mean towards blacks or women.) And this word "fundamentally" - like racist or sexist is not enough. "Fundamentally" is just a filler word, learnt in college, for "never going to change" so the speaker can keep claiming oppression forever. This thing you have isn't a "position," it's a memorized phrase that's been drilled into your unthinking head to justify your victim identity.

1. most of the sexism on television is aimed toward men. Men are buffoons. The new "blond."

I'd say this depends on what you watch. If you watch network sitcoms and dramas, most of the white male characters are buffoons or somehow troubled because they can't get in touch with their inner child or whatever. Ew. Most female characters are smart and sassy. Most black and hispanic characters are precociously wise and funny. The ads reflect the demographic that watches. I rarely watch network. Sports are different and the ads reflect that demographic. BTW, I do think that the sensitivity about how white men are portrayed on TV gets to be a little much. Someone has to be the loser in a drama, the butt of the joke in a comedy. In previous eras the hero was almost always the white male so the change to the free fire zone, where anyone can get portrayed as a buffoon or a loser is a little jarring. It's probably hoping for too much but I'd like to see an objective study on this.

2. self-esteem doesn't actually help anyone succeed.

Too much self-esteem actually hurts people by giving them a false sense of superiority.

And "privilege" tells minority youth that the world is stacked against them.

I don't think that's the whole story, though. If you surveyed Asian American teenagers applying to university, I think you'd probably find close to 100% of them assume that they need to score significantly better than their White, Black, and Hispanic peers to have the same chance of getting accepted -- i.e. that the deck is stacked against them. And of course, it is. But I would guess that few of them respond with "Oh, then I won't bother."

"I think you'd probably find close to 100% of them assume that they need to score significantly better than their White, Black, and Hispanic peers to have the same chance of getting accepted --"

And they'd be right. So, it's not attitude then, it's fact.

And white students would be right that they had to score significantly better than blacks or hispanics.

But those preferences at those schools are explicit *policy*.

If I approach a potential employer for a job I don't know what policy that employer has. I can either assume that the employer is racist or sexist or doesn't like short people, or I can assume that I'm about to speak to a person who wants to find a good employee, and is pre-disposed to like me. I will make his day.

It might not be true, but it's more *likely* true than not. And if I'm not chosen to get an offer of employment, the *most likely* thing is that my interviewer will be sorry but could only chose one and someone else had a better resume or seemed a better fit.

Some of the time the truth will be that the fellow/lady was racist or sexist or didn't like short people or middle aged ladies. But if that's true some of the time, how does it *help me* to dwell on that?

Better to dwell on what is *also* true and doesn't sabotage my efforts.

Career and job hunting advice often includes suggestions that one follow up on rejections with nice letters of thanks, (assuming good will, as I suggest), and a friendly request for feedback on how to present yourself better next time or other advice.

Because people LIKE to help you.

They like to help you if you're a white lady, (women probably have a slight advantage here), but they also like to help you if you're male or black or asian or disabled or old.

Black individuals have been found to report the highest levels of self-esteem of any racial group in the United States. The purpose of the present research was to examine whether Black individuals also report higher levels of narcissism than White individuals. Study 1 (N = 367) found that Black individuals reported higher levels of narcissism than White individuals even when controlling for gender, self-esteem level, and socially desirable response tendencies. Study 2 (N = 967) and Study 3 (N = 315) found similar results such that Black individuals reported higher levels of narcissism than White individuals on the narcissism measures that captured less pathological facets of this construct. Study 3 also included indicators of psychological adjustment and found that the pathological aspects of narcissism were more strongly associated with maladjustment for Black individuals than for White individuals. The implications of these results for understanding the Black self-esteem advantage are discussed.

Like everything else the left says, the theory that blacks lack self-esteem is a lie. If anything they have excessive self-esteem. I await the next lefty theory that giving blacks too much self-esteem is part of a racist plot by The Man.

I can't even wrap my mind around the perspective of a white male who thinks he is the one that life is stacked against.

That's because you haven't applied for college or a job lately. White liberals who are so pleased with so-called affirmative action tend to be clustered in jobs where there aren't enough qualified women and minorities to threaten them. But lower down on the totem pole things are different.

If you are educator or your organization is concerned with the well being of teenagers abput Self Esteem for Teens, I am available to speak at your school or to your organization. If you are looking for personal development Self Esteem for Teens, I offer life and relationship coaching to help you stay connected to yourself and overcome the obstacles that are getting in the way of your happiness of Self Esteem for Teens.